/sci/ - Science & Math

God

>>11297246
>initial singularity
Not Big Bang cosmology. GR's prediction of a singularity is a failure of GR, not a feature of Big Bang cosmology.

>>11297252
Occam approves

Simulated universe.

>>11297271
Elaborate

>>11297316
Big Bang cosmology describes expansion from an extremely dense and hot state. Nowhere does it require an infinitely dense state to ever occur: infinite density is physical nonsense. General relativity predicts that such a singularity would have occurred; however, general relativity is known to have limitations of applicability. Modern physics is expected to accurately model the universe back to somewhere around 10^-42 seconds before GR's predicted singularity. At this 10^-42 second point, the universe was certainly not infinitely hot or dense, but finitely so, although absurdly high.

>>11297531
That makes sense
>General relativity predicts that such a singularity would have occurred; however, general relativity is known to have limitations of applicability
Reminder that this is a redundant statement. We don’t “excuse” GR’s prediction of singularities by wheeling out the known fact that GR has limitations; rather, its prediction of singularities is one of the ways we know it has limitations.

Is there any scenario in which the statements made in OP are wrong? I.e. in which it’s not true that
>at the Big Bang there is suddenly a huge energy input INTO the universe

>>11297557
>We don’t “excuse” GR’s prediction of singularities by wheeling out the known fact that GR has limitations; rather, its prediction of singularities is one of the ways we know it has limitations.
Not really. The primary limitation in question is that GR isn't a theory of quantum gravity. It treats matter and energy as a continuum, which is why the singularity shows up.
>Is there any scenario in which the statements made in OP are wrong? I.e. in which it’s not true that
>at the Big Bang there is suddenly a huge energy input INTO the universe
Conservation of energy says that the total energy in a closed system at one time is equal to its total energy at all other times. It doesn't say that the universe can't have a nonzero initial energy, since the initial time is the first time that can be considered. The energy in the universe doesn't have to come from something before if there was no before. If there was another universe before this one where the energy came from, so be it, but a nonzero initial energy is perfectly consistent with conservation of energy.

>>11297672
>The primary limitation in question is that GR isn't a theory of quantum gravity
It’s not an a priori truth that we need a theory of quantum gravity. If our theories already worked then we wouldn’t. As it turns out, they don’t, and singularities are evidence of that.
>Conservation of energy says that the total energy in a closed system at one time is equal to its total energy at all other times
As long as singularities plague our best theories then our best theories will continue to stubbornly refuse to admit that the universe is a closed system.
>The energy in the universe doesn't have to come from something before if there was no before
Isn’t there always a before? Relatedly, I don’t understand this statement:
>Modern physics is expected to accurately model the universe back to somewhere around 10^-42 seconds before GR's predicted singularity
1. “Before” could better be written as “after,” right?
2. Could it be that at 10^-100 seconds before/after GR's predicted singularity, the universe was very large and cool? Theory can’t rule it out, right? I assume this is the essence of what you are saying.

>>11297304
Based gif poster

>>11297799
>It’s not an a priori truth that we need a theory of quantum gravity.
If not quantum gravity, then something deeper than both quantum mechanics and general relativity. A model based on continuum mechanics will certainly not suffice.
>Isn’t there always a before?
Common intuition would say yes, but you should be careful to apply common intuition to the most extreme conditions in known existence. Spacetime may not have a "before" the big bang in any meaningful sense.
1. Yes, I should have said after.
2. Theory can't rule it out because theory doesn't apply there as of yet. However, that seems a highly implausible scenario. I doubt that whatever existed immediately before the 10^-42 second point is nearly so familiar as a large, cool state. You would also need to propose a mechanism that would explain such an occurrence.

>>11297889
>A model based on continuum mechanics will certainly not suffice
Not the hill I want to die on, but is not the basic reason for this that they simply diverge?
>Common intuition would say [there is always a before], but you should be careful to apply common intuition to the most extreme conditions in known existence. Spacetime may not have a "before" the big bang in any meaningful sense
Not common sense, just calculus. In a classical scenario there is always a before. Of course not in quantum. So are you basically saying that there is possibly (if not probably) no singularity at the origin? What about black holes?

>>11297246
>the initial singularity (at the origin of the Big Bang) is not contained in the universe,
False
>but is outside of everything.
False.
>It is “un-physical.”
False.
>This means the entire universe is an open thermodynamic system (energy and matter can enter and exit
Definitely false.

Read a book, OP. Not even a physics book, read literally any book in order to help you climb out of your severe retardation.

>>11297557
>Is there any scenario in which the statements made in OP are wrong?
Yes, the scenario of real life. The pre Big Bang state of the Universe is still the Universe, and the Universe is an isolated system by its classical definition (all that exists).
Where did you get the idea that the pre Big Bang Universe isn't the Universe? Why do you readily believe in the violation of all conservation laws? Is this a thinly veiled creationism thread?

>>11298015
t. Harvard University PHD, postdoctoral student under Stephen Hawking, and Tier 1 Canada Research Chair.

>>11298027
>Would anyone do that? Just go on the Internet and lie?
Do you conceive of the Universe as an empty balloon into which energy is injected by an outside agent? This isn't anywhere near any scientific model.

>>11297246
It is I, that which is self a prior-i.

Heed my call, or relinquish the masculinity of your ball(s).

>>11297246
>the fact that at the Big Bang there is suddenly a huge energy input INTO the universe.
>input INTO the universe.
The big bang IS the universe, numbnuts.

>>11298030
I’m citing a higher scientific authority to myself, my college prof. Do you want a pic of my degree?
>Do you conceive of the Universe as an empty balloon into which energy is injected by an outside agent?
Sure, if it’s open, it could be something like that. The multiverse is weird.

>>11298037
Your college prof had to fall out of a vagina before it ever was gifted a degree of professionality, and I fell out of Sindy Vagus' vagina. If I were to find a better one, I'd have to go to China.

>>11297271
You can get the big bang from just from the Hubble constant in regular astronomy without ever referring to anything relativistic, iirc.

>>11298041
Took you long enough, Tooker.

Still want to fight? Or is screaming at people younger than you all you want from your might?

>>11298042
>Still want to fight?
yes

>>11297965
>Not the hill I want to die on, but is not the basic reason for this that they simply diverge?
Not sure I follow you on this one. General relativity was never built to account for quantum phenomena. Note that I'm not saying quantum mechanics is necessarily absolutely correct; I'm saying that a more complete and trustworthy physical theory would provide a single consistent framework for phenomena which we now describe with two different frameworks: QM and GR.
>Not common sense, just calculus. In a classical scenario there is always a before.
In a classical scenario you can more or less just set a beginning to t=0 and run time from there. Something similar is possible in relativity, to the extent that a single universal t=0 can be defined.
>So are you basically saying that there is possibly (if not probably) no singularity at the origin? What about black holes?
Yeah, any and all proposed density singularities should be treated with utmost skepticism. Event horizons (and thus, black holes as we can observe them from outside) can form and exist just fine without a true singularity inside.

>>11298043
Okay. What game do you want this time? I prefer League of Legends. I main Zilean & Fiora, if you want to prepare your battle against me.

>>11298043
>>11298049
I play on OCE servers, my handle is Tabius or HeadCustomer.

Waiting for you, ya bald cunt.

>>11298045
>General relativity was never built to account for quantum phenomena
I know; is it not true that the main way this is manifest when we try to do early universe cosmology the fact that equations explode?
>In a classical scenario you can more or less just set a beginning to t=0 and run time from there
You can of course set whatever you want but the question is where t=0 can be placed in terms of what we can observe.
>Event horizons (and thus, black holes as we can observe them from outside) can form and exist just fine without a true singularity inside
...Only if there is a discoverable theory of quantum gravity. Right?

>>11297271
This. Never confuse faulty predictions of a theory with actual reality.

>>11298360
>Never confuse faulty predictions of a theory with actual reality
How to know if a prediction is faulty?

>>11297246
Implying big bang happened. Deal with it, our universe is adopted and from a tube, no banging at all.

Wait, you measure time inside exploding similarity expecting to be same seconds?

>>11298513
This. The universe is a series of tubes.

>>11298526
No

>>11297246
Eternal inflation

>>11297246

Virtual particles happening to come into existence on an extremely large scale, within the time. Since time wouldn’t really bring by definition of space - time, it could have taken infinite time or a very long one without taking too long at all as within infinite time, all possibilities either going to occur or have an extremely large chance of occurring, Within this split femto- second of extreme enough energy would have been created in the form of magnetic flux, as this is the basis as to how magnetic force works, to create this.

>>11298041
>just take a worse approximation to prove the point

>>11298037
>I’m citing a higher scientific authority to myself, my college prof. Do you want a pic of my degree?
No thanks, the bullshit can be detected with high precision without it.
The mere fact you contradict quite a few established observations agreed upon the scientific community and make heavy use of sci fi and pop sci concepts is enough for us to understand you're just a young retard pulling stuff out of his ass.

>>11299182
>The mere fact you contradict quite a few established observations agreed upon the scientific community and make heavy use of sci fi and pop sci concepts is enough for us to understand you're just a young retard pulling stuff out of his ass.
Can you give examples to make your accusation more concrete?

>>11297246
>Here is the current stage of cosmology: the initial singularity
No.

>>11301334
Comedian

>>11297246
If a theory is pushed as the only one, you may be sure it's some top-tier pseudo-science implanted there for some reasons. The reason for bbt was the inviolability of the abrahamic narrative, no wonder Lemaitre was a catholic priest and Hawking was another agent of Vatican.

>>11301861
It’s the only one because no one has put forward a theory that is anywhere near as corroborated by observational evidence.

>>11301894
because no one put it into your curriculum?
taste this one for a change: https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.0354
And there are probably many more as good as this one, but you dare to spew those arrogant remarks as if you read all of them by yourself and don't just mindlessly repeat what you've been told by your school teachers who'd read you marxism-leninism or mormonism if they were paid for it.

>>11300783
Sure, in the OP three ridiculous claims are made:
- That the pre Big Bang singularity is 'outside' the Universe. This is incorrect as the Big Bang describes the transition of the primordial state into the currently observable Universe. It's not 'outside', it's the same entity.
- That the primordial state (which evolves into the currently observable Universe) is somehow unphysical. Claiming that physical nature is unphysical is absurd.
- That the Universe is an open system. The Universe (which literally means all of physical reality) is by definition an isolated system and it is due to it being an isolated system that the second law of thermodynamics even bears any weight, as do the conservation laws.
- That the Big Bang describes a sudden magical appearance of energy. This is false, the scientific consensus is that all the energy in the Universe is exactly the same as the energy present right before the Big Bang, as per the law of Conservation of Energy.

Then, in later posts, you make reference to popsci concepts like a Multiverse as if it were different from the classical definition of Universe. You seem to be ignorant of basic physics such as conservation laws and thermodynamics, ignorant of the definitions of open, closed and isolated systems, and have been so far unable to make any coherent argument. You also committed the fallacy of appealing to authority, and the even worse mistake of lying about it by claiming you have contact with people you don't and the fraudulent claim that you have credentials that you don't.
You have no arguments, no degree, not even a basic understanding of the topic.
Why the hell are you here other than to shitpost?

>>11300783
Sure, in the OP four ridiculous claims are made:
- That the pre Big Bang singularity is 'outside' the Universe. This is incorrect as the Big Bang describes the transition of the primordial state into the currently observable Universe. It's not 'outside', it's the same entity.
- That the primordial state (which evolves into the currently observable Universe) is somehow unphysical. Claiming that physical nature is unphysical is absurd.
- That the Universe is an open system. The Universe (which literally means all of physical reality) is by definition an isolated system and it is due to it being an isolated system that the second law of thermodynamics even bears any weight, as do the conservation laws.
- That the Big Bang describes a sudden magical appearance of energy. This is false, the scientific consensus is that all the energy in the Universe is exactly the same as the energy present right before the Big Bang, as per the law of Conservation of Energy.

Then, in later posts, you make reference to popsci concepts like a Multiverse as if it were different from the classical definition of Universe. You seem to be ignorant of basic physics such as conservation laws and thermodynamics, ignorant of the definitions of open, closed and isolated systems, and have been so far unable to make any coherent argument. You also committed the fallacy of appealing to authority, and the even worse mistake of lying about it by claiming you have contact with people you don't and the fraudulent claim that you have credentials that you don't.
You have no arguments, no degree, not even a basic understanding of the topic.
Why the hell are you here other than to shitpost?

>>11301973
I had a huge reply prepared, debunking you line by line, which I erased upon seeing your baseless smear and lie
>lying about it by claiming you have contact with people you don't
>the fraudulent claim that you have credentials that you don't
>You have no degree, not even a basic understanding of the topic
Not going to argue with someone with such a low character as yours who just makes stuff up about someone else. Everything I said is true. Good day.

For science, let me re-emphasize that the prof here >>11298027 studied under Stephen Hawking at Cambridge after doing his PHD Harvard, holds a Tier 1 Canada research chair, and I studied under him in the theoretical physics programme at McGill University in Montreal. He was a good prof. He affirms all the things which >>11301973 attempts to debunk. If you want his email ask me and I will give you it myself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Brandenberger

>>11303101
>gets destroyed by anon
>cant refute
the absolute state of /sci/ trolls

>>11303533
>>gets destroyed by anon
Ok I will just debunk him myself
>That the pre Big Bang singularity is 'outside' the Universe. This is incorrect as the Big Bang describes the transition of the primordial state into the currently observable Universe. It's not 'outside', it's the same entity.
Falsely conflating initial singularity with the Big Bang
>That the primordial state (which evolves into the currently observable Universe) is somehow unphysical. Claiming that physical nature is unphysical is absurd
I’m right you’re wrong durrrr
>That the Universe is an open system. The Universe (which literally means all of physical reality) is by definition an isolated system
Reality doesn’t care about your chosen axioms, that’s not how science works. You have to go by what we can observe and know
>it is due to it being an isolated system that the second law of thermodynamics even bears any weight, as do the conservation laws
The second law of thermodynamics doesn’t cease to be true if the universe is in fact an open thermodynamic system ... its “weight” is unaffected
>That the Big Bang describes a sudden magical appearance of energy. This is false
>That the Big Bang describes a sudden magical appearance of energy. This is false, the scientific consensus is that ...
Appealing to authority. Stopped reading

I will say it again
Eternal inflation

>>11297246
> the initial singularity

There was no singularity. That the singularity follows from relativity tells us that our model of physics is wrong.

>>11297246
>the fact that at the Big Bang there is suddenly a huge energy input INTO the universe

There isn’t.

>>11304442
Interesting, how does that address the OP?

>>11304463
>There was no singularity
No matter what, if you take literally any limit, you get singularity. And yet people continue to say there is none. Are they retarded?

>>11305777
>No matter what, if you take literally any limit, you get singularity.

A singularity is impossible because of the Pauli exclusion principle. The singularity ONLY occurs within relativity, because relativity is wrong.

>>11305783
Why would we default to GR being the one that must be corrected and not quantum?

>>11305786
>Why would we default to GR being the one that must be corrected and not quantum?

Because the Pauli exclusion principle is verifiably true. Quantum dynamics take center stage at quantum scales and relativity simply doesn’t account for this in any way. Both quantum dynamics and relativity require replacement, as well as the standard model of particle physics.

>>11305822
>Because the Pauli exclusion principle is verifiably true
There could just be singularities that we will never be able to understand in nature, in fact this is probably the case, using common sense.

>>11305829
>There could just be singularities that we will never be able to understand in nature

There is no evidence of singularities whatsoever and they are impossible due to the Pauli exclusion principle. They are basically fairies.

>>11305835
Maybe the Pauli exclusion principle has just been verified false. I just noticed you didn’t give a reason for it taking precedence over GR in >>11305822, you just sort of stated it. GR is also “verifiably true” which is why Einstein is the most well known scientist in history. So can you explain your logic for why the one theory is prioritized over the other?

>>11305838
>Maybe the Pauli exclusion principle has just been verified false

I anticipate reading that paper. I’ll keep it in my documents folder right next to the paper about leprechauns that live inside of the planet Mercury and the healing power of crystals.

> I just noticed you didn’t give a reason for it taking precedence over GR in >>11305822, you just sort of stated it

A theory of quantum mechanics will always take precedence over a theory of gravity on the quantum scale. Relativity does not account for quantum effects in any way whatsoever.

> GR is also “verifiably true”

It’s verifiably wrong, because it fails to describe gravity and motion on quantum scales and leads to absurdities like singularities, which we know can not exist because of the Pauli exclusion principle.